[WikiEN-l] Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies

[Slim Virgin]

On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > Along the lines of "John Smith is a British schoolteacher who
> > came to public attention after being discovered on the floor naked
> > during a geography class, having asked his pupils to draw a map of
> > Europe on his genitals."
>
> > The point is that no news organization or encyclopedia would publish a
> > biography of the geography teacher just because of that one incident.
>
> Well, if a news organization isn't reporting it, we're not including it.

They might report the incident. They wouldn't rush off to write a
biography of the person on that basis alone.

>   That seems to be a valid standard to work with in terms of biographies
> of living people, even if we go way too far with it already.  We're more
> than your standard encyclopedia, and we cover what's possible to cover.
>   If John Smith is in the news, he's notable and we should consider
> inclusion.

You seem to be saying we should have a biography on every single
person who has ever been in the news.
>
> > We're currently asking the question "Why shouldn't Wikipedia publish
> > biographies on everyone for whom reliable sources can be found?" but I
> > think we should turn that on its head and ask "Why *should* we, given
> > that no else does?"
>
> Because we're better than everyone else, and we're better than to cow to
> the demands of our subjects.

Well, another way of looking at it is that it's because we're worse
than everyone else, and that we don't listen to our subjects'
reasonable requests.
> >
> > If we were to adopt an opt-out clause for borderline notables, I think
> > it would generate significant goodwill among the public, because this
> > is seen as one of our major problems.
>
> Among who?  Our problems deal with reliability, with vandalism, and with
> trust.  "Borderline notability" is hardly on the radar when you consider
> factual issues, Sinbad/Sieganthaler-style vandalism, and issues like the
> Essjay incident.

There's a perception that we're not reliable, and that we don't take
sufficient editorial responsibility for the material produced by our
thousands of anonymous editors. If we were to announce that we
recognize biographical material on living persons is an area where the
open-editing model can be inappropriate, and that therefore we're
going to allow certain types of subjects to opt out, we'd be seen as
responsible and self-regulating.
>
> Building an encyclopedia is about building a wealth of knowledge, not
> creating some goodwill.  If we're in the market for goodwill, then start
> a goodwill project, not an encyclopedia.

It's the goodwill of the public that's financing us.